Designing for the Learner-First Workforce

by Presidents Forum | Apr 17, 2026 | Video, Working Learners

Designing for the Learner-First Workforce

What is a learner-first workforce model

A learner-first workforce model starts with how students actually live and work today.

At Excelsior University, that means designing programs for working adults, military learners, and career changers who are balancing multiple responsibilities. Education is not separate from work. It must connect directly to it.

What employers need from graduates

Employers consistently point to a broader set of expectations. Technical skills matter, but they are not enough on their own.

Graduates must be able to communicate clearly, think critically, and collaborate across teams. These skills are often assumed, but they need to be built intentionally into programs and reinforced through applied learning.

Why flexibility is now essential

Many students are managing unpredictable schedules This is especially true for military learners and working adults.

Programs must allow students to continue progressing even when work schedules shift or life circumstances change. Without that flexibility, persistence becomes much more difficult.

Where the system creates friction

Barriers such as credit transfer limitations, rigid timelines, and complex administrative processes continue to slow students down.

These challenges add time and cost, and they often prevent students from completing credentials even when they have already made significant progress.

What a learner-first system requires

A learner-first system reduces friction, aligns programs with workforce demand, and creates clear pathways to employment.

When institutions design around real student experiences, learners can move more efficiently through education and into careers that support long-term mobility.

Transcript

00;00;04;19 – 00;00;38;21 Shalise Obray Welcome to the President’s Form podcast. This month we’re focusing on what we’re calling the learner first workforce, how institutions are better connecting education to opportunity while designing for the reality of today’s students, working adults, career changers and learners. Balancing multiple responsibilities. I’m joined today by David Stable, president of Excelsior University. David is a consistent leader in this space, and Excelsior has been at the forefront of building programs aligned to high demand industries while supporting learners who need flexibility, recognition of prior learning, and clear pathways to advancement.

00;00;38;24 – 00;00;50;25 Shalise Obray David, great to have you back with us. When you think about a learner first workforce. How is that showing up in the way Excelsior designs its programs and pathways?

00;00;50;27 – 00;01;23;24 David Schejbal So thanks. Good to be with you. So, you know, we, have many corporate partnerships, and we engage with employers a lot. And so we have a pretty good idea of what employers are looking for, and they’re typically looking not only for well prepared people by people who are actually practice ready so that they can go and work, the first day on the job so that the employer doesn’t have to do a lot of training.

00;01;23;26 – 00;01;55;12 David Schejbal So we’ve taken that, to heart. We are providing, our students not only with good opportunities to learn online, but also opportunities for intensive, in-person experiences at, some of our sites. And we’re also trying to provide our students with some of the, what I call cognitive skills that employers don’t talk about as much, but, but but we all know that that’s what they want.

00;01;55;13 – 00;02;02;13 David Schejbal Things like, critical reasoning skills, good communication, emotional intelligence, those kinds of things.

00;02;02;15 – 00;02;23;15 Shalise Obray That makes a lot of sense. It sounds like Excelsior has been really intentional about aligning your, your programs with high demand industries. And I know that you’re doing that even in some of your newer programs. What are you seeing work especially well when it comes to connecting learners to real job opportunities or job opportunities in real time?

00;02;23;17 – 00;02;57;21 David Schejbal Well, like I said, I think the practice really piece is really important. So, having, very detailed conversations with employers, and getting to the heart of what it is that they’re looking for, because an employer might say, you know, I really want somebody to know this particular programing language, but when you probe that a bit, what they really want is someone who can talk to different people, talk to programmers, talk to salespeople, talk to management, and have the technical skills, to be able to apply.

00;02;57;23 – 00;03;18;09 David Schejbal But it’s not the I think a lot of times employers will lead with the technical skills, whether it’s whether it’s, it or health care or business or whatever. But, but it’s the, the, the, the soft skills, the interpersonal skills that are often the ones that trip people up.

00;03;18;11 – 00;03;36;02 Shalise Obray Your students are often balancing work and education. And I know it’s not just your students, but I think the majority of students, at this point in time, what are the most important design choices that make it possible for them to succeed with, with that being the case?

00;03;36;04 – 00;04;03;26 David Schejbal Well, and and as you know, more than a third of our students, their work, balancing work means balancing military work. And so, what we learn from our military students that we certainly extend to all of our students is that, flexibility and, in an understanding of personal circumstances is really, really important. So in the military, it could be literally a life and death issue.

00;04;03;26 – 00;04;31;00 David Schejbal Right? So military students who are deployed often have to go dark. They cannot communicate. And so if they can’t communicate, with, their families, they certainly can’t get into online courses to do work and they can’t turn in assignments. So we need to be very understanding and flexible, with that. And, and we we need to be able to understand that with some of our other students as well.

00;04;31;01 – 00;04;54;21 David Schejbal Doesn’t mean we let students, get away with, dodging it. But, but we need to understand that people have really complicated, really busy lives and that education is one piece of their lives, but it’s not the only piece. Our students are an 18 year olds who’s, you know, who’s whose life consists of living in the dorms and having a beer on Thursday night.

00;04;54;24 – 00;04;57;09 David Schejbal Our students are juggling a lot of stuff.

00;04;57;11 – 00;05;23;01 Shalise Obray I think it’s really telling how you’re saying that. You’ve learned from your military students that how hard you’re trying to, be flexible and design around the needs of your of your students. Where do you see the biggest gaps today between what employers need and how at higher education is currently structured? I know you’re talking about sometimes employers don’t always say exactly what they what they need.

00;05;23;02 – 00;05;24;27 Shalise Obray Where do you see those gaps?

00;05;24;29 – 00;05;56;03 David Schejbal You know, I don’t think higher ed has been really good at focusing on the interpersonal skills that we’ve been talking about the communication, the the emotional intelligence, the ability to work across teams, the grit, inability to deal with ambiguity. We the the phrase that I always, excuse my faculty is that it’s it’s, faith based learning where we take it on faith that students are somehow magically going to learn that stuff.

00;05;56;05 – 00;06;23;10 David Schejbal They don’t magically learn it. You have to be explicit about it. You have to make exercises that help them practice those skills, because otherwise it’s unrealistic to expect them to learn it. But it’s those particular cognitive abilities, those those, interpersonal skills that are absolutely transportable from job to job and that become, increasingly more important as people, go up the food chain.

00;06;23;12 – 00;06;35;14 Shalise Obray I think they’re becoming increasingly important to, as we see what I can do or what technology can do, versus what we need people to do or how we need people to work together in teams.

00;06;35;15 – 00;06;36;26 David Schejbal You bet. Absolutely.

00;06;36;28 – 00;06;48;10 Shalise Obray If we were to get this right at scale across institutions, across the whole system, what would be meaningfully different for for learners, do you think?

00;06;48;13 – 00;07;13;00 David Schejbal Well, I think so. First of all, one of the things that we need to do is take the friction out of the learning experience. Higher ed has been great at creating a bureaucracy that’s student, unfriendly. And whether it’s credit transfer or, being able to take time off like I was talking about or sensitivity to personal, responsibilities and challenges.

00;07;13;02 – 00;07;29;12 David Schejbal We need to take some of that friction out of the system and make it easier for students to actually focus on learning, rather than having to spend time, and energy and frustration dealing with the bureaucracy. That has nothing to do with the actual learning process.

00;07;29;15 – 00;07;45;21 Shalise Obray I think that would be a huge relief for for many students. Thank you so much for talking to us today. This is exactly the kind of work that I know the forum is focused on elevating

00;07;45;22 – 00;07;47;27 David Schejbal Thank you so much. Always good to be with you.

00;07;47;29 – 00;07;59;24 Shalise Obray What we’re discussing isn’t theoretical. Institutions like Excelsior are already building models that connect learning directly to opportunity, and doing it in ways that reflect the reality of today’s learners. Thanks for listening.

A Student-First Model for Working Adults

by Presidents Forum | Apr 15, 2026 | Video, Working Learners

A Student-First Model for Working Adults

What’s happening

Eva Nodine, CEO of Purdue Global, says their designing higher education around working adults—not traditional students.

Why it matters

Most learners today are balancing jobs, families, and school. Traditional models weren’t built for that reality.

What stands out

1M+ credits for prior learning awarded in one year
Flexible pathways that move beyond fixed schedules
AI used to personalize support and progression

The bottom line

Institutions that align learning with how students actually live—and with the demands of the workforce—will define the future of higher education.

The Workforce Is the Classroom: How Colleges Must Redesign Learning for a Learner-First Economy

by Presidents Forum | Apr 13, 2026 | Uncategorized, Working Learners

By Dr. Justin H. Lonon, Dallas College Chancellor

The Traditional Model Is No Longer Enough

The traditional classroom model is no longer enough to meet the demands of today’s workforce.

At Dallas College, gone are the days of the classroom being confined to four walls. Students today need more than lectures and textbooks – they need real-world experience, industry connections, and confidence to lead. That’s why we’ve embedded workforce learning directly into our curriculum, transforming education into a launchpad for career success.

Dallas College sits at the intersection of education and industry, serving as a bridge to economic mobility for students and a workforce pipeline for employers. This guiding principle shapes every initiative we undertake.

A Learner-First Workforce Model

A learner-first workforce model means designing education around real-world application – where students don’t prepare for work, they do the work as part of their learning.

From logistics and automation to entrepreneurship and health care, Dallas College students are solving real business challenges through hands-on projects, apprenticeships, and pitch competitions. By connecting education and industry, we ensure that students don’t just earn credentials; they gain the skills, confidence, and networks to thrive in a competitive job market.

Learning Through Real-World Experience

At the inaugural Global Mission Summit, our students took center stage in the Global Mission Pitch Cup, presenting innovative solutions to real industry challenges while receiving mentorship from national business leaders. Similarly, our Start-Up Bootcamp equips students with the tools to launch and sustain businesses, fostering entrepreneurial thinking and leadership.

These experiences are more than resume builders; they’re transformational. Students who engage in workplace learning are 25% more likely to secure full-time employment within six months of graduation. Paid internships boost first-year salaries by over $3,000 and significantly increase student confidence.

Scaling Workforce-Aligned Learning

Since 2022, Dallas College has engaged 17,333 students in workplace learning, including:

2,754 in clinicals
6,069 in co-ops, internships, and practicums
8,510 in apprenticeships

Through strategic partnerships with Workforce Solutions Greater Dallas and the Dallas Regional Chamber, we’ve launched 10 industry sector partnerships connecting students with employers in high-demand fields.

Our School of Manufacturing and Industrial Technology offers embedded co-op models and fast-track programs like FAME (Federation of Advanced Manufacturing Education) and SACA (Smart Automation Certification Alliance) certification, with 100% job placement. In Health Sciences, more than 4,300 students have participated in experiential learning supported by $5.7 million in federal funding.

In our School of Education, 400 students have earned wages through paid work-based learning, including our K–12 teacher apprenticeship – the first of its kind in Texas.

These efforts have earned national recognition. Dallas College is the only Texas community college honored by the White House for scaling apprenticeships across 42 employer partnerships and 38 occupations.

Building the 22nd Century College

We’re proud of this progress, but we’re just getting started. Through our Outcomes Assessment Lab, we are tracking long-term job placement, wage growth, and employer satisfaction to ensure our graduates are not only hired but retained and thriving.

As we celebrate our 60th anniversary, we remain focused on building a 22nd Century College where every student earns a degree or credential, a network, and a clear path forward.

If we want a workforce that is ready to lead, we must design learning environments where students are already doing the work. At Dallas College, the workforce is the classroom, and that’s exactly the point.

What is Holding Back AI Innovation in Higher Education?

by Presidents Forum | Apr 10, 2026 | Innovation, Video, Working Learners

What is Holding Back AI Innovation in Higher Education?

What is holding back AI innovation in higher education?

Outdated regulations, especially those tied to seat time and “regular and substantive interaction”, are limiting innovation.

These rules were designed to prevent low-quality correspondence programs, but today they:

Regulate how education is delivered (inputs) instead of what students learn (outcomes)
Make it harder to scale self-paced, AI-enabled learning
Reinforce faculty-centric models that don’t reflect modern technology

Why does AI require a new model of learning?

AI changes how people learn in two key ways:

Students will start at different skill levels
They will take different paths to reach mastery

This makes fixed-time, one-size-fits-all education models obsolete.

How much will AI change jobs and skills?

A major takeaway from the Capitol Hill discussion:

70% of the skills in a typical job will change within five years

This means:

Nearly every worker will need to reskill or upskill
Learning will shift from “once and done” to continuous and lifelong

Can the current education system handle this level of reskilling?

No.

Today’s system is not built to:

Retrain the majority of the workforce at scale
Support continuous learning for people who already graduated
Deliver education efficiently enough to match the pace of AI change

What role should AI play in solving the reskilling challenge?

AI must be part of the solution.

According to Rajen Sheth:

We will need to train everyone on AI
And use AI to train everyone

That means:

Personalized learning tailored to specific jobs
Scalable delivery across millions of learners
Education embedded into real work contexts

What did policymakers on Capitol Hill understand about AI and education?

There are encouraging signs:

Federal agencies are already experimenting with scalable models (e.g., AI literacy via text messaging)
There is bipartisan awareness of the need to support innovation
Stakeholders across government, industry, and education are engaging together

However, coordination and speed remain challenges.

What needs to happen next?

To meet the scale of AI-driven change:

Policy must:

Shift from regulating inputs → measuring outcomes
Enable flexible, technology-driven learning models

Institutions must:

Build systems for lifelong learning at scale
Focus on skills, not just degrees

Technology must:

Deliver personalized, accessible learning for every worker

Bottom line: What is the biggest takeaway?

AI is forcing a shift from:

Static education → continuous learning
Standardized pathways → personalized mastery
Inputs → outcomes

The systems that adapt fastest will define the future of both education and the workforce.

Transcript:

00;00;05;13 – 00;00;30;24 Wes Smith As our audience knows, the President’s Forum was created to drive accountable innovation in higher education. The promise of innovation to improve higher ed by lowering costs and improving outcomes has never been more obvious. Our guest today is Rajan Sheth. He’s the CEO and co-founder of Kiran Learning. And last week we had the chance to cross paths in Washington, D.C..

00;00;30;26 – 00;00;33;02 Wes Smith Rajan, great to see you again today.

00;00;33;04 – 00;00;35;09 Rajen Sheth Hey, Wes. Good to see you as well.

00;00;35;11 – 00;01;05;25 Wes Smith Hey, one of the conversations that we had last week when we were together in D.C. with the President’s Forum, it revolved around some of the outdated regulations that are hampering innovation. And I just want to start with your reaction to hearing the president’s thinking around, rules and laws slowing down the adoption of AI and other innovation that could really improve the outcomes for students.

00;01;05;28 – 00;01;33;02 Rajen Sheth Yeah. Well, it was interesting for me as a technologist. It was a really enlightening conversation. I didn’t fully appreciate the barriers that universities run up against when they’re trying to do innovative things. What was interesting about that room is that you had the most innovative universities in the nation that were there, all who are open to innovation and who have been for many, many years.

00;01;33;04 – 00;01;52;12 Rajen Sheth But they’re running into barriers, with this. So, you know, I think one of the things that that really was interesting is when they started to talk about how there’s, how there is a, regulation on seat type, like, you have to be in class for X amount of time in order for it to be accredited.

00;01;52;14 – 00;02;33;28 Rajen Sheth And that is something that is just going to change rapidly in the world of AI. It’s just, you know, everyone’s going to start from a different starting point and they’re going to take a different path to getting to mastery. And that’s something that we’re going to have to plan for. With, with students that are out there. The other interesting thing that was interesting about the discussion is I came to appreciate kind of the coming soon that is coming with how every job is going to change, with, with AI and we’re going to need to make sure the regulatory environment is such that our best universities are most innovative universities able to educate those

00;02;33;28 – 00;02;37;17 Rajen Sheth students. And the scale of this is going to be massive.

00;02;37;19 – 00;03;07;09 Wes Smith Right, right. The conversation that you’re referencing, with the, the seat time, issues that that need to be resolved. It’s something that like insiders on, well, at least at the president’s forum are thinking about all the time. And it’s the regular and substantive interaction, regulation. The Department of Education was essentially trying to prevent, you know, low quality programs, from accessing federal aid.

00;03;07;11 – 00;03;31;03 Wes Smith And those used to be, you know, low program, low quality programs that were essentially, hey, this is this is, a program that you can send in. They’ll send you some material, you send it back, they’ll, you know, decide if you did well or not. And and they’re pulling down federal financial aid for programs that just weren’t very good.

00;03;31;05 – 00;04;05;01 Wes Smith And so it had a great intent as it started. But but it started regulating, the the inputs rather than the outcomes. And when you start regulating inputs, well, when the inputs become, more effective, delivered through technology, well, then your regulations are outdated. It kind of hard codes, faculty centric models and and it really hampers, you know, self-paced learning.

00;04;05;03 – 00;04;06;15 Rajen Sheth Yeah. So yeah.

00;04;06;17 – 00;04;12;16 Wes Smith Yeah, that’s the issue that we have to deal with. It really discourages technology enabled scale is what it does. Yeah.

00;04;12;18 – 00;04;33;06 Rajen Sheth You know I think it’s a really good point that yeah, it’s almost like you need to separate the of the intent from the execution. And, you know, in technology, a lot of times for particularly product management and technology, we try to separate out the what versus the how. So like for example, when we specify a product, we try not to specify the how too much.

00;04;33;08 – 00;05;00;13 Rajen Sheth We try to specify the problem and then let the engineers figure out the how in the most creative way that that that meets that requirement. And I think we got to do the same thing with policy. We need to understand the intent and then the how it’s going to change rapidly over time. But then, you know, as long as we’re going towards that intent, which is a strong good intent, then we’re going to we’re going to be able to meet it in different ways.

00;05;00;16 – 00;05;08;17 Wes Smith Yeah. I mean, in this case, we’re we’re functioning under regulations that were designed for correspondence courses.

00;05;08;22 – 00;05;09;05 Rajen Sheth Right.

00;05;09;06 – 00;05;43;18 Wes Smith Exactly. And we’re so far past that, the idea that you that you’re regulating that the how it’s done, you’re going to be perpetually, you know, behind with technology that’s just the fact unless you can figure out, you know, the, the why, the why is going to be really important. Okay. Exactly. So after our meeting, last week, after the president’s four meetings, you joined an effort to provide, insight to Capitol Hill staffers about the evolving technology, specifically AI.

00;05;43;20 – 00;05;50;01 Wes Smith And, and that was up on the Hill. Can you tell us a little bit about the event and what you observed there?

00;05;50;04 – 00;06;13;17 Rajen Sheth Yeah. Yeah, it was a wonderful event. You know, one, it was just interesting for me to be in the capital. That was the first time I was I was over there. And you know, you are. You’re in a place where so much history has been made and you can see the, the, the kind of, the intent of that is there for so many people to kind of adapt where we are to the new environment.

00;06;13;19 – 00;06;34;20 Rajen Sheth What was interesting about this, though, the forum was basically a set of companies that had been thinking about AI skilling, you know, how do we scale the workforce about AI? There are a variety of NGOs and nonprofits that have analyzed different aspects of this. And then there was, there were government. So there’s the, congressional staffers who were there.

00;06;34;20 – 00;06;59;07 Rajen Sheth There was the Department of Labor, Department of Education, that there were all there. And it’s the right group to bring this together. What was really striking to me is to understand the magnitude of the tsunami we are about to encounter. And like Lincoln was talking about how 70% of the skills of any typical job will change over the next five years because of AI.

00;06;59;09 – 00;07;26;26 Rajen Sheth And the vast majority of workers out there are going to have to be reskill, for this. And we also talked about how the existing environment, whether it be, you know, institutions, you know, learning and development training within corporations, it’s just not scale to deal with that. We’ve never had a situation where that portion of, you know, that giant portion of employees need to be rescaled.

00;07;26;28 – 00;07;52;00 Rajen Sheth And, you know, what was really interesting for me and what I talked about there was, we’re going to need to train every single person about AI and how you use AI for what they do. And we’re going to need to use AI to to train every single person. Like we’re going to need to figure out how do we extend our institution so that it is personalized for that person.

00;07;52;00 – 00;08;06;24 Rajen Sheth That’s an accountant in this particular organization that’s now learning how to use AI or a, you know, a, machinist in a particular organization that’s trying to use AI. You know, those are the things that need to happen if we’re going to, if we’re going to meet that scale.

00;08;06;26 – 00;08;21;03 Wes Smith Well, this is when I hear that, from, presents for perspective, the, the amount of reskilling that we’ll need. Did you say 70% of jobs will need to be updated?

00;08;21;06 – 00;08;46;06 Rajen Sheth What’s the what he said was the 70% of the skills for the typical job will need to be reskill. And what that means is, actually, it may be even more striking than that. It could mean the vast majority of people are going to need to learn how to use AI as part of their job. In some cases, in small ways, in a lot of cases, in very big ways, in order to still do their same job five years from now.

00;08;46;08 – 00;09;20;28 Wes Smith So I mean, when I hear that, what I hear is the current system that we have will never accommodate that kind, that scale of reskilling. So we have to think through how we can reskill individuals in a much, much more efficient way. And we have to I mean, when we’re looking at this lifelong learnings, a tagline that a lot of, in higher ed of have been saying a lot, you know, you hear, oh, yeah, we’re moving towards lifelong learning.

00;09;21;01 – 00;09;43;02 Wes Smith This is truly one of those areas where we’re going to have to incorporate back into systems. People have graduated with what they thought were terminal degrees and. Yeah, yeah, we’re done. And we, and they have to come back and reskill. They have to they have to upskill. They have to learn more about. And we don’t we don’t have the system that can do that right now.

00;09;43;05 – 00;10;03;10 Rajen Sheth Absolutely. And I think what’s interesting is that over the past, you know, ten, 15 years, lifelong learning is, is has gotten more traction. But it isn’t nice to have as a person must have. Upskilling has gotten traction, but it’s a nice to have as the person must have. Now all of a sudden, it’s going to be a must have.

00;10;03;17 – 00;10;19;05 Rajen Sheth Like you cannot replace all those people with people that know it because nobody knows it, and everybody’s going to need to, is going to need to learn. We need to get our systems to the point where, yeah, where they can be able to train that volume of people.

00;10;19;08 – 00;10;44;20 Wes Smith Well, I’m assuming that this was kind of shocking, to, to Hill staffers and government employees to say this is the kind of, of massive change that we have to prepare for. Did you get any sense from them? About their, you know, their preparation for this or how they’re planning to, you know, facilitate innovation through policy?

00;10;44;23 – 00;11;05;14 Rajen Sheth Yeah. Well, I was actually very impressed with how much they are understanding what’s what’s hitting and the kinds of things that they’re thinking about. The Department of Labor, talked about some of the things that they’re doing. They demo, for example, a, an AI literacy, module that they, they put out via text messaging.

00;11;05;14 – 00;11;25;05 Rajen Sheth So you just sign up for a text message and then it takes you through a ten day course, which I’m taking right now. I’m actually going through it right now. And it is, it gives you kind of the basics of how you think about AI. In with my other. Had I told you this before? I teach a class on intro, the AI at Stanford.

00;11;25;08 – 00;11;46;12 Rajen Sheth And it was interesting because a lot of the same principles that that I focus on there things that they were teaching via text messaging. And so their point was you can reach many, many more people via text, and you can, you can get them the right information to make them not afraid of AI. And I think I’m impressed that the people are starting to think about that.

00;11;46;14 – 00;12;09;02 Rajen Sheth However, it’s going to need to be a coordinated, coordinated thing between the government, between institutions, between companies to really actually solve this problem. It’s it’s, you know, one of the biggest things we need to solve. The other interesting thing is that they talked about, particularly LinkedIn, talked about the economic positive impact that could happen because of AI.

00;12;09;05 – 00;12;23;05 Rajen Sheth Like it could be an additional $4 trillion, in terms of adding to our GDP. So it’s a huge amount, but we have to do it in the right way. To actually get there.

00;12;23;08 – 00;12;45;02 Wes Smith Well, I’m impressed just by the idea that the Department of Labor is ahead of the curve on this text messaging, campaign. That’s that’s impressive to me. I mean, if somebody is thinking ahead and saying, hey, this has to be a huge focus for us, we need to start educating and facilitating a transition to an AI world.

00;12;45;05 – 00;13;12;02 Rajen Sheth Yeah, absolutely. They have a guy named Taylor Stockton that, is their chief innovation officer and been thinking about things the right way. And, you know, he comes from the startup world. He was a Google before as well. And, I’m impressed that they’re they’re thinking in a very agile way. And, you know, obviously it’s hard to get things done in, in, in the political world, but I think we’re all going to need to work together to figure out how to how to move quickly here.

00;13;12;06 – 00;13;46;14 Wes Smith Yeah, absolutely. And the meetings that we had on the Hill with presidents last week, I thought it was pretty remarkable how consistent the responses were from, Democrat leadership and Republican leadership with regard to, facilitating innovation. I think both sides, they understand the issue and they want to solve the problem. The next step is actually, you know, putting some of the solutions into legislation.

00;13;46;14 – 00;14;01;12 Wes Smith That’s the hard part in DC, right, is getting something through and signed and, and, it’s just inherently political. But, on this particular issue, it seemed fairly bipartisan to me. I don’t know if that was your experience with Hill staffers.

00;14;01;14 – 00;14;02;10 Rajen Sheth Yeah.

00;14;02;12 – 00;14;04;06 Wes Smith We saw something different.

00;14;04;09 – 00;14;23;18 Rajen Sheth No, I saw the same thing. I think everyone is realizing that this is going to be an issue, and that is not polarizing. Everyone knows this is coming. And so, you know, we know we will have a big problem with the job market if we don’t do something about this. And so, there was a lot of unity out there.

00;14;23;18 – 00;14;39;25 Rajen Sheth And I think now we got to see what kind of policy can we put in place, what kind of innovation can be put in place, how that can be rolled out, and how you involve the institutions, and, and the other companies into this to, to make it a reality.

00;14;39;27 – 00;15;09;29 Wes Smith Right. Okay. Well, I want to wrap this with your takeaways. So based on your experience and what you saw, at the Capitol last week, what would your takeaways be for specifically for higher ed innovators who are looking to incorporate, AI and other solutions into their work so they can lower costs and so they can, you know, increase the outcomes, the quality of outcomes that students experience.

00;15;10;02 – 00;15;12;27 Wes Smith What are your takeaways based on what you learned?

00;15;12;29 – 00;15;37;09 Rajen Sheth Well, I think that a lot of what we talked about in the president’s form about bringing down the cost of education, reaching more people, it’s going to become vital over the course of the next few years. And I think that we’re going to have to move quickly. We’re going to have to adopt AI in our teaching practices and make it such that we can really, truly personalize for every situation, every learner that’s out there.

00;15;37;11 – 00;15;50;25 Rajen Sheth And we’re going to have to remove the barriers from a policy perspective such that we can all move faster. There’s a lot of intent to move faster, but it’s really hard to do that right now. And so if we can do that, we can actually meet this challenge. It’s about faces.

00;15;50;27 – 00;15;57;05 Wes Smith Yeah. Well Rajan, thanks for joining us today. Thanks for the debrief on the time in DC. It’s been a pleasure.

00;15;57;07 – 00;15;58;24 Rajen Sheth Yeah. Thank you. I really appreciate.

Comments on AHEAD

by Presidents Forum | Apr 9, 2026 | Press Release

Re: Comments on Accountability in Higher Education and Access Through Demand-Driven Workforce Pell: Pell Grant Exclusion Relating to Other Grant Aid; and Workforce Pell Grants

Dear Under Secretary Nicholas Kent,

The Presidents Forum appreciates the Department’s engagement through these directed questions and the opportunity to contribute to the development of Workforce Pell. As a nonprofit organization composed of innovative college and university leaders, we are committed to advancing student-centered policies that expand access and improve outcomes for working learners and other nontraditional students.

We recognize that successful implementation will be critical to realizing the full potential of Workforce Pell. As the Department finalizes its approach, we encourage a framework that is clear, consistent, and practical for institutions to implement, and that supports expanded access and strong outcomes for students.

Where relevant, we also encourage alignment with existing regulatory approaches to promote consistency and avoid unnecessary complexity for institutions serving students across state lines, including in how student location is determined.

Directed Questions

Written Arrangements To Provide Educational Programs (§ 668.5(c))

The Presidents Forum appreciates the Department’s recognition of the role partnerships can play in strengthening eligible workforce programs. High-quality workforce programs are closely aligned with employer and industry needs, and that alignment often depends on collaboration with external partners who bring specialized expertise, training environments, and real-world application into the educational experience.

In many cases, effective workforce programs integrate instruction delivered in partnership with employers or other industry-aligned organizations. These partnerships help ensure programs remain responsive to labor market demand and that students acquire skills that translate into employment and earnings outcomes. The depth of these partnerships is often central to program quality and student success.

The proposed 25 percent limitation may unintentionally constrain the development of high-quality workforce programs by limiting institutions’ ability to fully leverage these partnerships. In some cases, institutions may be required to replicate training components that are more effectively delivered in collaboration with industry, reducing program effectiveness and increasing costs without clear benefit to students.

While we recognize the Department’s interest in ensuring appropriate oversight, we believe this can be achieved while allowing greater flexibility. The proposal is more restrictive than the framework that has historically governed written arrangements in Title IV programs, and we encourage the Department to consider a similarly flexible approach here.

Accordingly, we recommend that the Department allow written arrangements that exceed 25 percent where appropriate institutional control and oversight are maintained. This flexibility will better support innovative, employer-aligned programs that deliver strong outcomes for students.

Ineligibility Due to Grant or Scholarship Assistance (§ 690.5)

This provision effectively shifts the Pell Grant from a first-dollar to a last-dollar benefit in certain circumstances. For decades, Pell has served as the foundational source of financial aid for low-income students, with state, employer, institutional, and philanthropic support layered on top. Many of these aid programs have been designed with the expectation that Pell funding will be applied first in a student’s financial aid package.

Altering this structure, even in limited situations, may have unintended consequences for students. State and local aid programs, employer tuition benefits, and private scholarships may not be structured to adjust seamlessly to a last-dollar Pell model. As a result, students may face reduced total aid or increased complexity in calculating or determining financing for their education, particularly for working learners who rely on multiple sources of support.

Policy should encourage employer investment in education. This change may affect employer participation in workforce education programs. If employer-provided assistance reduces or eliminates Pell eligibility, it may create disincentives for employers to invest in their employees’ education or for students to utilize available employer benefits, which could undermine the goal of expanding access to demand-driven workforce programs.

The proposed requirement to recalculate aid and potentially return Pell funds when additional non-Federal assistance is identified and exceeds the student’s cost of attendance may further increase complexity and uncertainty for both students and institutions. Changes in financial aid eligibility throughout an award year may be difficult for students to navigate and could introduce administrative challenges for institutions attempting to manage multiple funding sources in real time and provide students with as much aid as possible.

Given these considerations, we encourage the Department to carefully assess the broader impacts of this provision on students and existing aid ecosystems. Any additional reporting, oversight, or enforcement mechanisms should be designed to minimize disruption to these systems, reduce unnecessary administrative burden, and avoid discouraging employer, state, or philanthropic investment in student success.

Components Determined by Governors (§ 690.93)

The Presidents Forum supports the Department’s goal of ensuring that eligible workforce programs are aligned with labor market demand.

As the Department implements this requirement, it will be important that the process for state approval is clear, efficient, and capable of operating at the scale required to meet workforce needs. Workforce demand is often regional or national in nature, particularly in high-demand sectors where employers operate across state lines and where remote work is increasingly common. Many workforce programs are designed to prepare students for employment opportunities that extend beyond a single state.

Given these realities, the structure and execution of the approval process will be critical. If the process is overly complex or time-intensive, it may limit institutions’ ability to expand access to high-quality programs through distance education in a timely manner. This could reduce opportunities for students, particularly working learners, who depend on flexible access to programs aligned with in-demand careers.

We encourage the Department to prioritize the development of a streamlined and scalable approach for state approval that enables coordination across multiple states where appropriate. A clear and efficient framework will better support the expansion of high-quality workforce programs while maintaining alignment with labor market needs and preserving appropriate state involvement.

Value-Added Earnings: Interim Value-Added Earnings Metric (§ 690.95(a))

The Presidents Forum encourages the Department to prioritize clarity, stability, and effective implementation as it develops the value-added earnings framework for eligible workforce programs.

As the Department considers whether to introduce interim measures or additional layers of accountability, it is important to avoid creating a system that is overly complex or difficult for institutions to implement. Workforce Pell has the potential to expand access to high-quality, demand-driven programs, but that potential depends on a regulatory framework that institutions can navigate efficiently and consistently.

An overly complex or rapidly evolving accountability structure may create uncertainty for institutions, limit their willingness to develop new programs, and ultimately reduce the availability of opportunities for students. This is particularly important for programs designed to serve working learners, where flexibility, speed to market, and alignment with employer needs are critical.

We encourage the Department to focus on developing a clear and sustainable long-term approach to measuring student outcomes, rather than introducing additional interim requirements that may complicate implementation. A streamlined and well-understood framework will better support institutional participation, program innovation, and improved outcomes for students.

Value-Added Earnings: Exclusion of Certain Students in the Completer Cohort (§ 690.95(a))

The Presidents Forum supports the Department’s commitment to developing a value-added earnings metric that meaningfully reflects program outcomes while maintaining fairness across diverse student populations. As the Department considers the composition of the completer cohort, we believe it is both appropriate and necessary to exclude students who are actively enrolled in postsecondary education at the time earnings are measured.

This consideration is particularly important for nontraditional students, including working adults and military-connected learners, who often pursue education through incremental, stackable pathways. Workforce Pell programs are designed not only to support immediate employment outcomes, but also to enable continued educational progression through credentials that are transferable and build toward higher levels of degree attainment. As a result, many students will intentionally re-enroll in subsequent programs shortly after completion as part of a planned pathway to career advancement.

For these students, short-term earnings may not accurately reflect the value of the initial program, as they may be balancing employment with continued education or temporarily deferring full labor market participation to complete additional credentials. Including actively enrolled students in the value-added earnings calculation could therefore understate program effectiveness, particularly for programs intentionally designed to support upward mobility through continued learning.

Excluding currently enrolled students is also consistent with the Department’s longstanding approach in other accountability frameworks, including the 2023 Gainful Employment regulations and earnings metrics reported through the College Scorecard. Maintaining this consistency will support clearer interpretation of outcomes and provide a more accurate comparison across programs and institutions.

We recognize the Department’s concern that exclusions may introduce unintended incentives. However, in this context, the risk of distortion is greater if actively enrolled students are included, as doing so may discourage institutions from designing programs that promote continued education and credential progression. Such an outcome would run counter to the goals of Workforce Pell, which emphasizes alignment with workforce needs while supporting long-term economic mobility.

From an administrative perspective, excluding students who are actively enrolled should not create a significantly additional burden. The Department already has access to enrollment data through its existing systems, and applying a consistent exclusion across accountability measures may reduce complexity for institutions by aligning expectations across frameworks.

Accordingly, we recommend that the Department exclude students who are actively enrolled in postsecondary education at the time earnings are measured from the value-added earnings cohort. This approach will better reflect the realities of nontraditional student pathways, support the design of stackable and transferable workforce programs, and ensure that accountability metrics accurately capture both immediate and long-term value for students.

Value-Added Earnings: Process for Combining Multiple Cohorts (§ 690.95(h))

The Presidents Forum recognizes the Department’s goal of ensuring that value-added earnings metrics can be calculated for a broad set of programs, including those with smaller enrollment levels, by combining multiple cohorts to meet minimum sample size thresholds. We support the objective of increasing transparency and consistency in accountability measures while reducing the need for data suppression.

At the same time, as the Department considers the appropriate structure for cohort aggregation, it is important to ensure that the resulting metric remains timely, accurate, and reflective of current program outcomes, particularly for workforce programs that primarily serve nontraditional students, including working adults and military-affiliated learners.

These student populations often engage in education through flexible, iterative pathways that are responsive to changing workforce demands. Programs designed for working learners are frequently updated to reflect employer needs, incorporate new technologies, or align with evolving industry standards. Additionally, many Workforce Pell-eligible programs are intentionally structured as stackable and transferable credentials that encourage re-enrollment and continued skill development over time.

In this context, aggregating earnings outcomes across multiple years may unintentionally blend results from materially different program structures, labor market conditions, and student experiences. Older cohorts may reflect prior versions of a program or different economic environments, which could limit the ability of the metric to accurately capture the value of current program offerings. This may be particularly pronounced for programs serving military-connected students, where mobility, deployment cycles, and transition periods can also influence both enrollment patterns and early earnings outcomes.

We also note that nontraditional students often experience more gradual earnings progression as they balance employment, education, and other responsibilities. As a result, the timing of earnings measurement and the cohorts included can significantly influence how program value is reflected in accountability metrics.

While cohort aggregation can improve statistical reliability, extending the aggregation window too far may reduce the responsiveness of the metric and create misalignment with the pace at which workforce programs evolve. This could, in turn, discourage innovation or delay program improvements if institutions perceive that outcomes will not be reflected in accountability measures for several years.

From an administrative perspective, a clearly defined and limited aggregation approach can help balance the need for sufficient sample size with the importance of maintaining a metric that is understandable and actionable for institutions, students, and policymakers.

Accordingly, we recommend that the Department maintain a reasonable and limited cohort aggregation window of no more than the three most recent award years, avoiding the inclusion of older cohorts that may not reflect current program design or labor market conditions. This approach will support the calculation of stable earnings metrics while preserving their relevance for workforce programs serving nontraditional learners.

We further encourage the Department to consider safeguards or contextual indicators where programs have undergone significant changes, to ensure that accountability measures accurately reflect current performance. A balanced approach to cohort aggregation will better support transparency, program innovation, and the continued development of high-quality, workforce-aligned educational opportunities for working adults and military-affiliated students.

Value-Added Earnings: Programs Serving Out-Of-State Students (§ 690.95(k))

As the Department finalizes its approach to adjusting earnings for geographic differences, it is important that the methodology does not disadvantage programs that serve students across state lines, particularly through distance education.

Many workforce programs are designed to reach students beyond a single state, including working learners who rely on online and hybrid models to access education. These programs play a critical role in expanding access to training aligned with in-demand careers. An approach that applies different earnings adjustments based on the geographic distribution of students may unintentionally penalize these models, even when they produce strong outcomes.

Programs serving a broader, multi-state population should not be evaluated under a framework that places them at a disadvantage relative to programs serving primarily in-state students. Differences in methodology should not result in unequal treatment based on delivery model or student geography.

We encourage the Department to adopt an approach that ensures consistent and equitable evaluation of programs, regardless of whether they serve students locally or across state lines. Maintaining neutrality across delivery models will be important to preserving access, innovation, and student opportunity within Workforce Pell.

Sincerely,

Wesley Smith

Executive Director

Presidents Forum

« Older Entries

Next Entries »